Lexical Change of Southern Dialect of Li Niha

This qualitative research addresses the lexical changes, which is aimed at (1)investigating the lexical change types, (2) describing the lexical change patterns,and (3) explaining the lexical change reasons of Southern dialect of Li Niha. The empirical materials were thoroughly and well-gathered from the document and interview. The highly critical and systematic analysis with 'Miles and Huberman Model' reveals that Southern dialect of Li Niha changes. This research has drawn the following conclusions. Firstly, the lexical changes of Southern dialect of Li Niha comprised lexical loss, semantic change, and lexical creation. Secondly, the patterns of lexical change of Li Niha has been manifested on three types: (1)lexical loss: (a) potential and (b) total lexical loss; (2) semantic change: (a) Noun to Noun, (b) Noun to Adjective, (c) Noun to Verb, (d) Adjective to Adjective, (e)Adverb to Verb, (t) Verb to Noun, (g) Verb to Verb, and (h) Verb to Adjective;(3) lexical creation: (a) internal lexical creation and (b) external lexical creation. Thirdly, the reasons of lexical changes of Southern dialect of Li Niha were: (I)lexical loss: cultural, linguistic and prestige factors; (2) semantic change: analogy,metaphor, mutual concept, implication, and euphemism factors; (3) lexical creation: naturalization, technological development, foreign influence, mutual linguistic feature, translation and adoption of the conceptual feature. In educational setting, the various changes of Southern dialect lexicon of Li Niha implicitly implicate that language standardization, i.e. selection, codification,elaboration and acceptance, is not totally employed, consequently it bears an enormously complicated problem impeding the success of teaching and learning Li Niha to the next generation

Innovation Ecosystems as Structures for Value Co-Creation

Despite the many recent discussions on “innovation ecosystems” as well as on open innovation or other co-innovation models, a more in-depth understanding of the multi-actor processes of value co-creation remains rather scarce. Hence, in this case study, we provide significant novel insight about innovation ecosystems as structures enabling multi-actor value co-creation in real-life innovation ecosystems. Based on our empirical findings, we identified two key principles: 1) in order to encourage the active participation of ecosystem actors in the value co-creation process, efforts must be made to ensure a clear vision and a shared value base on which the ecosystem activities can be built and 2) facilitation is needed to support the ecosystem actors to make new connections and to share their knowledge and resources in concrete ways. Most importantly, the more diversity there is among the ecosystem actors, the greater the support for innovativeness within the value co-creation process

Circular Economy Matrix Guiding Manufacturing Industry Companies towards Circularity:A Multiple Case Study Perspective

Manufacturing companies struggle with overwhelming expectations, disruptions andtrends sweeping over their business environment. The evident climate change, togetherwith rising sustainable development goals, is forcing companies to discover their environmental impact, in addition to the more familiar economic one. The transformation froma linear economy to a circular economy (CE) reduces waste and improves resource efficiency through the deployed R-cycles, such as recycle, reuse and repair. This transformation is feasible for multinational enterprises because they can allocate sufficient resourcesfor their strategic development goals. For small and medium-sized enterprises (SME),any additional investment must be carefully assessed and planned. Thus, SMEs need support and tools to select their next development investments. Generally, maturity modelshelp companies find their status (compared to others) and identify the most importantdevelopment areas and actions. This paper presents the CE maturity matrix, which comprises five maturity levels mapped with seven linear manufacturing value chain phases.The matrix was piloted with nine manufacturing industry companies, four of which werefrom Finland, one from Italy, one from Germany and three from Ireland. The CE matrixinterview results showed that none of the interviewed manufacturing industry companiesremained at the linearity level. The most common levels varied between systemic materialmanagement and CE thinking. In the interviews, over 40 CE actions were identified asthe argument for a company reaching a CE maturity level. The transition towards sustainable manufacturing has already started but will require efforts to accelerate and to engagecompanies to proceed

Paradox of openness: knowledge sharing-protection tension in ecosystems

The paper describes findings about knowledge management in innovation constellations that are calling themselves as innovation ecosystems. The focus is in tension between knowledge sharing and knowledge protection, i.e. in the paradox of openness. The research asked whether an ecosystemic and open way of innovation differs to innovation in networks in respect to how the paradox appears. The study applied the methodology of qualitative research. Experiences and practices were collected from 13 innovation ecosystems. According to the findings, the paradox seems to be very true in ecosystems and even more pronounced than in innovation networks, because in ecosystems one may not know all actors of innovation. That makes the promotion of knowledge sharing in ecosystems as a multifaceted issue. In addition, the findings suggest that firms in different ecosystem roles have role specific approaches towards sharing vs. protection.©2020 International Society for Professional Innovation Managementfi=vertaisarvioimaton|en=nonPeerReviewed

Paradox of openness : knowledge sharing-protection tension in ecosystems

The paper describes findings about knowledge management in innovation constellations that are calling themselves as innovation ecosystems. The focus is in tension between knowledge sharing and knowledge protection, i.e. in the paradox of openness. The research asked whether an ecosystemic and open way of innovation differs to innovation in networks in respect to how the paradox appears. The study applied the methodology of qualitative research. Experiences and practices were collected from 13 innovation ecosystems. According to the findings, the paradox seems to be very true in ecosystems and even more pronounced than in innovation networks, because in ecosystems one may not know all actors of innovation. That makes the promotion of knowledge sharing in ecosystems as a multifaceted issue. In addition, the findings suggest that firms in different ecosystem roles have role specific approaches towards sharing vs. protection.©2020 International Society for Professional Innovation Management, Lappeenranta University of Technologyfi=vertaisarvioimaton|en=nonPeerReviewed

The ISPIM Innovation Conference: Innovating in Times of Crisis

The paper describes findings about knowledge management in innovation constellations that are calling themselves as innovation ecosystems. The focus is in tension between knowledge sharing and knowledge protection, i.e. in the paradox of openness. The research asked whether an ecosystemic and open way of innovation differs to innovation in networks in respect to how the paradox appears. The study applied the methodology of qualitative research. Experiences and practices were collected from 13 innovation ecosystems. According to the findings, the paradox seems to be very true in ecosystems and even more pronounced than in innovation networks, because in ecosystems one may not know all actors of innovation. That makes the promotion of knowledge sharing in ecosystems as a multifaceted issue. In addition, the findings suggest that firms in different ecosystem roles have role specific approaches towards sharing vs. protection. </p